People v. Paniagua-Herrera CA2/5

Filed 5/31/24 P. v. Paniagua-Herrera CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B329900

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA040317) v.

JUAN MARTIN PANIAGUA- HERRERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Walgren, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia S. Lai, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

In 2005, following a court trial, the trial court found Juan Martin Paniagua-Herrera guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)(1)).1 He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. In 2022, Paniagua-Herrera filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6). At the hearing, defense counsel conceded that Paniagua-Herrera was the only defendant charged. At trial, Paniagua-Herrera argued diminished capacity and self-defense. The trial court denied the petition because Paniagua-Herrera failed to show he was convicted under an invalid theory of murder. He was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor and there was no indication that malice could have been imputed to him. Paniagua-Herrera appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, Paniagua- Herrera’s attorney filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel also requested that we conduct an independent review of the record. We invited Paniagua-Herrera to submit a supplemental brief, which he did. We decline to conduct an independent review of the record as counsel requested, and we limit our consideration to the specific issues Paniagua-Herrera raises in his letter response filed in this court.2 (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232